Maggie was OTT

TORIES have a tendency to go OTT. I believe Margaret Thatcher went OTT when a mounted police force charged a group of striking miners down a Barnsley Street in 1984.

Share article

I was delivering milk and had nothing to do with the strike, but was lucky to avoid being badly hurt by the police. Add to that what went on at Hillsborough and the police don’t come out of it at all well. It appears they are ultra right wing.

Walt Jackson Usk

Promoted Stories

Comments (17)

The title 'Police' comes from the State effectively using the force to ensure it's 'policy' is carried out. Being a short term, it is used in preference to 'Law Enforcement Agency', which is a longer term providing the same facility for the State. Most police officers are Apolitical, unless and until the State demands allegiance whenever it perceives a threat to itself. At base, everyday crime can be assessed as infractions against the state, because established law is the prerogative of the State., Civil disturbance for which the Police are used to suppress, is a different matter as it is considered both subversive to the State and potentially could cause the failure of the State. Thatcher used the police in that sense, when all that was occurring was a labour dispute, which in itself had no imperative to cause the failure of the State per se. Her policy therefore was utterly wrong. Roaming gangs of police officers called on from forces across the nation were illegitimate and used immorally.

The title 'Police' comes from the State effectively using the force to ensure it's 'policy' is carried out.
Being a short term, it is used in preference to 'Law Enforcement Agency', which is a longer term providing the same facility for the State.
Most police officers are Apolitical, unless and until the State demands allegiance whenever it perceives a threat to itself.
At base, everyday crime can be assessed as infractions against the state, because established law is the prerogative of the State.,
Civil disturbance for which the Police are used to suppress, is a different matter as it is considered both subversive to the State and potentially could cause the failure of the State.
Thatcher used the police in that sense, when all that was occurring was a labour dispute, which in itself had no imperative to cause the failure of the State per se.
Her policy therefore was utterly wrong.
Roaming gangs of police officers called on from forces across the nation were illegitimate and used immorally.varteg1

The title 'Police' comes from the State effectively using the force to ensure it's 'policy' is carried out. Being a short term, it is used in preference to 'Law Enforcement Agency', which is a longer term providing the same facility for the State. Most police officers are Apolitical, unless and until the State demands allegiance whenever it perceives a threat to itself. At base, everyday crime can be assessed as infractions against the state, because established law is the prerogative of the State., Civil disturbance for which the Police are used to suppress, is a different matter as it is considered both subversive to the State and potentially could cause the failure of the State. Thatcher used the police in that sense, when all that was occurring was a labour dispute, which in itself had no imperative to cause the failure of the State per se. Her policy therefore was utterly wrong. Roaming gangs of police officers called on from forces across the nation were illegitimate and used immorally.

Score: 0

Llanmartinangel says...1:39pm Fri 31 Jan 14

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT'
You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?Llanmartinangel

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

Score: 15

whatintheworld says...2:57pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?[/p][/quote]you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though.
varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.whatintheworld

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Score: -5

Llanmartinangel says...3:11pm Fri 31 Jan 14

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?[/p][/quote]you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though.
varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.[/p][/quote]Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.Llanmartinangel

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

Score: 11

varteg1 says...4:55pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel wrote…

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place. I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise. MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State. Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support. At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria. The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties. Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen. There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.

[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?[/p][/quote]you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though.
varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.[/p][/quote]Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.[/p][/quote]I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place.
I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise.
MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State.
Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support.
At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria.
The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties.
Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen.
There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.varteg1

Llanmartinangel wrote…

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place. I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise. MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State. Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support. At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria. The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties. Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen. There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.

Score: -1

varteg1 says...7:45pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel wrote…

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place. I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise. MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State. Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support. At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria. The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties. Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen. There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.

[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?[/p][/quote]you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though.
varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.[/p][/quote]Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.[/p][/quote]I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place.
I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise.
MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State.
Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support.
At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria.
The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties.
Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen.
There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.varteg1

Llanmartinangel wrote…

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place. I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise. MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State. Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support. At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria. The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties. Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen. There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.

Score: -6

CliveAC says...9:52pm Fri 31 Jan 14

varteg1 wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place. I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise. MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State. Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support. At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria. The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties. Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen. There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.

Police uphold the law - not the staus quo.

[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?[/p][/quote]you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though.
varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.[/p][/quote]Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.[/p][/quote]I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place.
I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise.
MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State.
Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support.
At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria.
The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties.
Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen.
There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.[/p][/quote]Police uphold the law - not the staus quo.CliveAC

varteg1 wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place. I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise. MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State. Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support. At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria. The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties. Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen. There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.

Police uphold the law - not the staus quo.

Score: 3

CliveAC says...10:02pm Fri 31 Jan 14

CliveAC wrote…

varteg1 wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place. I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise. MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State. Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support. At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria. The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties. Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen. There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.

Police uphold the law - not the staus quo.

Why don't you separate the philosphy from the immediate issues, and "lessons learnt". Try Powerpoint philosophy, get your (good) messages over sooner, and more succinctly and you may become an Argusian!

[quote][p][bold]CliveAC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?[/p][/quote]you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though.
varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.[/p][/quote]Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.[/p][/quote]I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place.
I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise.
MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State.
Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support.
At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria.
The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties.
Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen.
There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.[/p][/quote]Police uphold the law - not the staus quo.[/p][/quote]Why don't you separate the philosphy from the immediate issues, and "lessons learnt".
Try Powerpoint philosophy, get your (good) messages over sooner, and more succinctly and you may become an Argusian!CliveAC

CliveAC wrote…

varteg1 wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place. I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise. MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State. Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support. At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria. The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties. Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen. There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.

Police uphold the law - not the staus quo.

Why don't you separate the philosphy from the immediate issues, and "lessons learnt". Try Powerpoint philosophy, get your (good) messages over sooner, and more succinctly and you may become an Argusian!

Score: 0

scraptheWAG says...10:40am Sat 1 Feb 14

what a terrible government the conservatives were but since 1997 Newport has blossomed into the wonderful economic power house that it is today. thanks caewyn and co your amazing!!

what a terrible government the conservatives were but since 1997 Newport has blossomed into the wonderful economic power house that it is today.
thanks caewyn and co your amazing!!scraptheWAG

what a terrible government the conservatives were but since 1997 Newport has blossomed into the wonderful economic power house that it is today. thanks caewyn and co your amazing!!

Score: 1

Thinking heads says...11:32am Sat 1 Feb 14

Hy it's raining blame the welsh assembly?

Hy it's raining blame the welsh assembly?Thinking heads

Hy it's raining blame the welsh assembly?

Score: -3

Monmouthshire Merlin says...7:49pm Sat 1 Feb 14

HMS Conqueror sank the battleship General Belgrano as she sailed away from the exclusion zone. HMS Conqueror log book 'mislaid'. Need I say anymore?

HMS Conqueror sank the battleship General Belgrano as she sailed away from the exclusion zone. HMS Conqueror log book 'mislaid'. Need I say anymore?Monmouthshire Merlin

HMS Conqueror sank the battleship General Belgrano as she sailed away from the exclusion zone. HMS Conqueror log book 'mislaid'. Need I say anymore?

Score: -3

Stevenboy says...10:00pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Monmouthshire Merlin wrote…

HMS Conqueror sank the battleship General Belgrano as she sailed away from the exclusion zone. HMS Conqueror log book 'mislaid'. Need I say anymore?

HMS Conqueror sank the battleship General Belgrano as she sailed away from the exclusion zone. HMS Conqueror log book 'mislaid'. Need I say anymore?

Invaded country sinks enemy aggressors warship shock horror.

Score: 4

pwlldu says...10:20pm Sat 1 Feb 14

OTT A century on, and for some in the Rhondda the Tonypandy Riots remain a symbol of duplicitous coal-owners, and interference from Westminster in Welsh affairs. Despite initial reservations, Churchill eventually ordered 200 Metropolitan Police officers into Tonypandy, with a detachment of Lancashire Fusiliers held in reserve in Cardiff. The bitterness towards Churchill, which has been passed down the years, stems from the fact that the troops' presence made picketing impossible, and effectively broke the strike. It stuck in the craw of the miners, that a Liberal government would use the army to side with pit owners over the workers.

OTT A century on, and for some in the Rhondda the Tonypandy Riots remain a symbol of duplicitous coal-owners, and interference from Westminster in Welsh affairs.
Despite initial reservations, Churchill eventually ordered 200 Metropolitan Police officers into Tonypandy, with a detachment of Lancashire Fusiliers held in reserve in Cardiff.
The bitterness towards Churchill, which has been passed down the years, stems from the fact that the troops' presence made picketing impossible, and effectively broke the strike. It stuck in the craw of the miners, that a Liberal government would use the army to side with pit owners over the workers.pwlldu

OTT A century on, and for some in the Rhondda the Tonypandy Riots remain a symbol of duplicitous coal-owners, and interference from Westminster in Welsh affairs. Despite initial reservations, Churchill eventually ordered 200 Metropolitan Police officers into Tonypandy, with a detachment of Lancashire Fusiliers held in reserve in Cardiff. The bitterness towards Churchill, which has been passed down the years, stems from the fact that the troops' presence made picketing impossible, and effectively broke the strike. It stuck in the craw of the miners, that a Liberal government would use the army to side with pit owners over the workers.

Score: 4

GardenVarietyMushroom says...4:41pm Sun 2 Feb 14

CliveAC wrote…

varteg1 wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place. I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise. MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State. Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support. At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria. The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties. Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen. There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.

Police uphold the law - not the staus quo.

Hahaha - police uphold the law? Good one.

[quote][p][bold]CliveAC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]whatintheworld[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote:
'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?[/p][/quote]you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though.
varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.[/p][/quote]Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.[/p][/quote]I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place.
I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise.
MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State.
Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support.
At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria.
The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties.
Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen.
There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.[/p][/quote]Police uphold the law - not the staus quo.[/p][/quote]Hahaha - police uphold the law? Good one.GardenVarietyMushroom

CliveAC wrote…

varteg1 wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

whatintheworld wrote…

Llanmartinangel wrote…

'TORIES have a tendency to go OTT' You wouldn't call invading Iraq, a country which posed us no threat, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people 'OTT' then?

you might remember that the tories vehemently supported the war in iraq, nice try though. varteg1 has swooped in and dropped a fact bomb.

Err, my point was that going 'OTT' isn't limited to the Tories. It's a politician thing. It just strikes me as selective that someone can write a letter singling out Thatcher's response to an industrial dispute and ignore Blair's dodgy dossier used in the justification for bombing Iraq.

I referred to Thatcher only because it was during her stint that the confrontation between miners and police took place. I have not the slightest doubt any other political administration would have done likewise. MY whole point was to make clear the reason d'etre of the 'police' is primarily to uphold the status quo in regards the power of the State. Such power can only be tolerated to a certain degree, and recent events under the auspices of the Coalition government have done nothing to erase my feeling that should a civil rebellion take place, there would be no doubt our unarmed police would soon be well armed, and if insufficient in numbers, would be reinforced by military support. At least sufficient numbers in Parliament had the cojones to down the Coalition attempt to further drag us through the mud of international opprobrium when asked to support our involvement in Syria. The only pity is, insufficient numbers steadfastly fail to support internal and necessary legislation that could winkle out the bloodlust that seems inherent in the upper echelons of all parties. Decent human beings, not only refuse to succumb to that bloodlust, they also reject the demands of State when they impact on the ordinary citizen. There are far too few among the political hierarchy unfortunately, and we all pay the price for that.

Police uphold the law - not the staus quo.

Hahaha - police uphold the law? Good one.

Score: -2

coalpicker says...11:19am Mon 3 Feb 14

varteg1 wrote…

The title 'Police' comes from the State effectively using the force to ensure it's 'policy' is carried out. Being a short term, it is used in preference to 'Law Enforcement Agency', which is a longer term providing the same facility for the State. Most police officers are Apolitical, unless and until the State demands allegiance whenever it perceives a threat to itself. At base, everyday crime can be assessed as infractions against the state, because established law is the prerogative of the State., Civil disturbance for which the Police are used to suppress, is a different matter as it is considered both subversive to the State and potentially could cause the failure of the State. Thatcher used the police in that sense, when all that was occurring was a labour dispute, which in itself had no imperative to cause the failure of the State per se. Her policy therefore was utterly wrong. Roaming gangs of police officers called on from forces across the nation were illegitimate and used immorally.

ON THE BUTTON

[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote:
The title 'Police' comes from the State effectively using the force to ensure it's 'policy' is carried out.
Being a short term, it is used in preference to 'Law Enforcement Agency', which is a longer term providing the same facility for the State.
Most police officers are Apolitical, unless and until the State demands allegiance whenever it perceives a threat to itself.
At base, everyday crime can be assessed as infractions against the state, because established law is the prerogative of the State.,
Civil disturbance for which the Police are used to suppress, is a different matter as it is considered both subversive to the State and potentially could cause the failure of the State.
Thatcher used the police in that sense, when all that was occurring was a labour dispute, which in itself had no imperative to cause the failure of the State per se.
Her policy therefore was utterly wrong.
Roaming gangs of police officers called on from forces across the nation were illegitimate and used immorally.[/p][/quote]ON THE BUTTONcoalpicker

varteg1 wrote…

The title 'Police' comes from the State effectively using the force to ensure it's 'policy' is carried out. Being a short term, it is used in preference to 'Law Enforcement Agency', which is a longer term providing the same facility for the State. Most police officers are Apolitical, unless and until the State demands allegiance whenever it perceives a threat to itself. At base, everyday crime can be assessed as infractions against the state, because established law is the prerogative of the State., Civil disturbance for which the Police are used to suppress, is a different matter as it is considered both subversive to the State and potentially could cause the failure of the State. Thatcher used the police in that sense, when all that was occurring was a labour dispute, which in itself had no imperative to cause the failure of the State per se. Her policy therefore was utterly wrong. Roaming gangs of police officers called on from forces across the nation were illegitimate and used immorally.

ON THE BUTTON

Score: -1

varteg1 says...3:27pm Tue 11 Feb 14

It would seem there are some with a willingness to vote down ry that exposes the truth Not the slightest doubt the same sort who would be handing c ups of tea and sandwiches to the state paratroopers as they storm into legitimately assembled protesters who are objecting to being shafted by their paymasters in Whitehall.

It would seem there are some with a willingness to vote down ry that exposes the truth
Not the slightest doubt the same sort who would be handing c ups of tea and sandwiches to the state paratroopers as they storm into legitimately assembled protesters who are objecting to being shafted by their paymasters in Whitehall.varteg1

It would seem there are some with a willingness to vote down ry that exposes the truth Not the slightest doubt the same sort who would be handing c ups of tea and sandwiches to the state paratroopers as they storm into legitimately assembled protesters who are objecting to being shafted by their paymasters in Whitehall.

Score: 0

varteg1 says...10:06pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Thinking heads wrote…

Hy it's raining blame the welsh assembly?

Why not? it's been **** all over us since it's inception.

[quote][p][bold]Thinking heads[/bold] wrote:
Hy it's raining blame the welsh assembly?[/p][/quote]Why not? it's been **** all over us since it's inception.varteg1

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here